Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives To examine the association between physicians’ use of digital health technology and their job satisfaction and work–life balance.
Design A cross-sectional nationally representative survey of physicians and probit regression models were used to examine the association between using digital health technology and the probability of reporting high job satisfaction and a good work–life balance. Models included a rich set of covariates, including physicians’ personality traits, and instrumental variable analysis was used to control for bias from unobservable confounders and reverse causality.
Setting Clinical practice settings in Australia, including physicians working in primary care, hospitals, outpatient settings, and physicians working in the public and private sectors.
Participants Respondents to wave 11 (2018–2019) of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey of doctors. The analysis sample included a broadly nationally representative sample of 7043 physicians, including general practitioners, specialists and physicians in training.
Primary and secondary outcome measures The proportion of respondents who used any digital health technology; proportion answered ‘moderately satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ to the statement on job satisfaction: ‘Taking everything into account, how do you feel about your work’; proportion agreeing or strongly agreeing to the statement on work–life balance: ‘The balance between my personal and professional commitments is about right.’
Results Physicians with positive beliefs about the effectiveness of using digital health technology were 3.8 percentage points (95% CI 2.7 to 5.0) more likely to use digital health technology compared with those who did not. Physicians with colleagues who already used digital health technology were also 4.1 percentage points (95% CI 2.6 to 5.6) more likely to use digital health technology. The availability of IT support and lack of privacy concerns increased the probability of using digital health technology by 1.6 percentage points (95% CI 1.0 to 2.3) and 0.5 percentage points (95% CI 0.1 to 1.0). Physicians who used digital health technology were 14.2 percentage points (95% CI −1.3 to 29.7) and 20.3 percentage points (95% CI 2.4 to 38.1) more likely to report respectively higher job satisfaction and good work–life balance, compared with the physicians who did not use it.
Conclusions Findings suggested digital health technology served more as a work resource than work demand for physicians who used it.
- information management
- health economics
- health policy
- telemedicine
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors AZ conducted the literature search, statistical analysis and contributed to data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript. AS provided management oversight of the project and contributed to data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript.
Funding This research was funded by the Australian Digital Health Agency. We used data from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey. Funding for MABEL was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2007–2016: 454799 and 1019605); the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2008); Health Workforce Australia (2013); and in 2017, The University of Melbourne, Medibank Better Health Foundation, New South Wales Department of Health, and Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. In 2018, MABEL was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health, Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, and the Australian Digital Health Agency. The study was approved by The University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ref: 0709559) and the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans (Ref: CF07/1102-2007000291).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available (for more information on how to access MABEL data, see https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/mabel/for-researchers/data).
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.